Case law

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 15, 2020

If only a portion or portions of the 7 material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also must clearly 8 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 9 … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 17 may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that provides for production

Wegbreit v. Marley Orchards Corp.

793 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 11, 1992

Article III Section 27A incorporates the specific limitations periods which the various circuits had established prior to June 19,1991. … Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 316 , 65 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945), is clearly a matter of legitimate Congressional interest. See International Union of Elec. Wkrs. v.

Blakely v. Peterson

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 27, 2020

The moving party bears the 14 “burden of establishing the nonexistence of a ‘genuine issue.’” Celotex Corp. v. 15 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). … Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. 8 Without an Eighth Amendment violation, injunctive relief is unavailable. 9 While Defendants also seek qualified immunity, without an Eighth Amendment

Kachess Community Association v. US Department of the Interior

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 26, 2020

However, the Eleventh Amendment provides that a state is 15 immune from suit unless it has waived its immunity or Congress has abrogated its 16 immunity through legislation. Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. … Without establishing 14 standing and ripeness, Plaintiffs have failed to establish federal subject matter 15 jurisdiction.

Kim v. Board of Trustees of Whitman College

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 28, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the 17 material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also 18 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 19 … This provision is not intended to modify 15 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that 16 provides for production without prior privilege review.

Anderson v. United States of America

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 10, 2022

Mathews provided a written statement in which he discussed 22 the two restrictions he established for training on July 30th. Lt. Col. … Mathews had given him 9 instructions for additional restrictions on unit training, it would have been his duty 10 to clearly communicate those controls to Range Control.

Doggett v. Perez

348 F. Supp. 2d 1179 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 28, 2004

There is a “clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately fabricated by the government.” Devereaux v. … This motion does not seek summary judgment for Perez on the basis that he did not deliberately fabricate evidence or that he is otherwise entitled to qualified immunity from damages.

Dickson v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 5, 2020

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing 4 party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 6 may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that provides for production

Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

240 F. Supp. 3d 1114 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 9, 2017

For example, the SAIs clearly show that the Enterprises instruct their servicers to comply with state law. … In other words, Congress’s intent to cloak the FHFA with the exclusive ability to operate the Enterprise does not immunize it (or the Enterprises) from compliance with state law.

Bartlett v. United States

835 F. Supp. 1246 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 14, 1993

Here, the court previously has determined Plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination by disparate treatment. … Clearly, Plaintiff has been severely affected emotionally from Defendant’s conduct and that injury is manifested by serious physical impairments. However, the court concludes, in contrast to Dr.

True v. United States

51 F. Supp. 720 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 13, 1943

No doubt, between 1900 and 1904, the father and the two-sons established a reputation for honesty, fair dealing and integrity. … Defendant asks me to assume that it was issued to her in order that she might qualify as a corporation director.

Kerr v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Group

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 15, 2020

If only a 7 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing 8 party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 9 appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify 17 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that 18 provides for production without prior privilege review.

Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 598 v. Morris

511 F. Supp. 1298 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 9, 1981

The case is, therefore, clearly different than one in which another union and employer combine for an anticompetitive purpose. … The subject matter of the MCA proposal was clearly related to mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.

Hymas v. United States Department of Interior

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 7, 2020

determine legal sufficiency.1 10 The Court must dismiss the action if it is “frivolous or malicious;” “fails to state a 11 claim upon which relief can be granted;” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant 12 who is immune … However, even if the Court were to 4 infer from this allegation an attempt to establish standing as to a claim for alleged 5 waste of funds, Plaintiff’s taxpayer status is insufficient to establish standing.

Empire Health Found. v. Price

334 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 13, 2018

Two scenarios exist in which a person may qualify for Medicare Part A and yet not receive or be "covered" by his or her Medicare Part A benefits. … "A court lacks authority to undermine the regime established by the Secretary unless her regulation is 'arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.' " Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med.

Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Henneford

15 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 9, 1936

So far as concerns the federal immunity from state taxation, a tax upon storing or withdrawal so involved cannot be distinguished from the tax on sales imposed by the Mississippi statute condemned as - unconstitutional.” … Presumptions of fact are only indulged in the absence of the fact or facts presumed and arise out of inference from collateral facts admitted or otherwise satisfactorily established.

Townsend v. Longino

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 26, 2022

Qualified Immunity and Mootness 4 As Plaintiff’s claims do not survive summary judgment, the Court need not 5 address at length the remaining arguments in Defendants’ summary … With regard to qualified immunity, there are no claims left for 8 which qualified immunity may serve as a defense. Mitchell v.

In re Iso Ray, Inc. Securities Litigation

189 F. Supp. 3d 1057 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 1, 2016

Besides, Plaintiffs neither define “clinically meaningless” nor explain how Feuerstein, who is not a medical professional, is qualified to make determinations regarding what is “clinically meaningless.” … The Press Release did not qualify any of its statements about the performance of WR+B, while the Study clearly did so.

City of Moses Lake v. United States

451 F. Supp. 2d 1233 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 30, 2005

Stated the Court: Once Congress has made such a waiver [of sovereign immunity], we think that making the rule of equitable tolling applicable to suits against the Government, in the same way that it is applicable to private … That does not qualify as a “continuing tort.” If anything, it represents a potentially new tort claim which has yet to accrue because there has been no injury as yet.

Demarest v. City of Leavenworth

876 F. Supp. 2d 1186 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 27, 2012

The DRB is a five-member board established by the City Council, in part to review applications for sign permits. … Demarest is a licensed attorney, Plaintiffs’ claims are not clearly set forth either in the 44-page Amended Complaint or the Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment briefing.